A Big First: Spring-run Chinook Return! (San Joaquin River)

April 25, 2019

http://www.restoresjr.net/a-big-first-spring-run-chinook-return-to-the-san-joaquin-river/?fbclid=IwAR1Q8y9CCJflo-KcxCQBvt-98yF71hrvOfz2G9j1fCbSYsoYDv-noahh_3Y

Thank you for sharing Howard.

Very cool to read about this

Baby steps

Mixed feelings about this one. I remember first hearing about this project nearly a decade ago, when the program was looking for spring Chinook eggs to rear in their hatchery facility.  A LOT of time, money, and effort has been put into it. But it’s not really “restoring” a downtrodden run: San Joaquin spring Chinook have been extinct for decades. Those fish that are returning to Friant Dam are a combination of wild spring Chinook from Deer, Mill, and Butte Creeks in the north Central Valley; and hatchery springers from the Feather River.

It’s cool to see spring Chinook in the San Joaquin again, but they’re not “San Joaquin spring Chinook”. I feel like all the money being spent on this project could’ve gone towards restoring runs of fish that still exist and are in imminent danger of extinction. Sac River winter-run Chinook and Central Valley spring-run in the Sac River tribs come to mind.

Mixed feelings about this one. I remember first hearing about this project nearly a decade ago, when the program was looking for spring Chinook eggs to rear in their hatchery facility.  A LOT of time, money, and effort has been put into it. But it’s not really “restoring” a downtrodden run: San Joaquin spring Chinook have been extinct for decades. Those fish that are returning to Friant Dam are a combination of wild spring Chinook from Deer, Mill, and Butte Creeks in the north Central Valley; and hatchery springers from the Feather River.

It’s cool to see spring Chinook in the San Joaquin again, but they’re not “San Joaquin spring Chinook”. I feel like all the money being spent on this project could’ve gone towards restoring runs of fish that still exist and are in imminent danger of extinction. Sac River winter-run Chinook and Central Valley spring-run in the Sac River tribs come to mind.

Those are valid concerns.


I was with  Relclamation when this project was getting started and there are a few reasons this does make sense:


First and most important factor - Funding: Funds for this are conservation funds collected from Friant Project Water Districts for use in Friant Project Service Area for the management and restoration of native fishes.  If the $$ is not spent in the Friant Project Serviace Area or appurtinant to the servica area as a means of restoration within the service area, the funds would dry up very quickly...


Morality: in my book, you can attempt to replace something that has been lost, especially if this attempt does not come at eh expense of other projects. The San Joaquin salmon were extirpated due to water management practices, but based on the laws passed to protect, manage and restore anadromous fish this is a worthy project, evermore so because it does not take resources away from other salmon populations at risk in different management areas.


Conservation vs preservation: this is an old discussion, but if we are managing a resource primarily for the benefit of the public (since almost no resources are managed to the complete exclusion of public good *desert pupfish could be an example tho), what does the average citizen care that the awesome "long lost" salmon had muddy genetics? the public wants to feel good about a resource being restored and even more they want to dream of a day when thy can engage in conservation based consumptive use of the resource...
We live in a world where the mistakes of our forefathers are permanent in many cases, but that does not mean that a resource needs to be forever lost. genetic purity sure feels good to us scientists, but the public doesn't care or understand and if resource managers refuse to take any restorative action because it wouldn't be genetically pure the public will see the resource managers as working against the public will and public good. and they would be correct...


just my 2c, from a conservation minded and consumptive use management standpoint

There's some big words in there(!) but have to say I agree with what he says. Pretty well thought out.

There's some big words in there(!) but have to say I agree with what he says. Pretty well thought out.

LOL






I did forget to mention that these are not described so much as San Joaquin Chinook, but Central Valley Chinook, but the public doesn't care either way...


"Betsy, there's salmon in the old dried up river. Guess all that water did something after all, whoo wee, that's a sight" 

Good info Rockfish, thanks. It certainly helps fill in the blanks for me, especially regarding the funding constraints.

It'll be interesting to see how long this run will require hatchery assistance before it's self-sustaining. If it goes on for too long, wouldn't these fish be no different from the traditional Feather River Hatchery strain? And if that's the case, how different would this operation be from a traditional hatchery operation?

Good info Rockfish, thanks. It certainly helps fill in the blanks for me, especially regarding the funding constraints.

It'll be interesting to see how long this run will require hatchery assistance before it's self-sustaining. If it goes on for too long, wouldn't these fish be no different from the traditional Feather River Hatchery strain? And if that's the case, how different would this operation be from a traditional hatchery operation?

realistically, I have a feeling that this will be a hatchery operation until the point that Mendota Pool and Folsom are no longer holding water back...  i.e. roughly the end of civilization if we are lucky it makes it that long.... but from a pragmatic point of view this is far superior to a dry river with nothing more than memories and laments running in its banks, a least in my opinion

My father was in resource management a the federal level for 35 years and the key thing I learned from him was that to have effective long term resource management you NEED public buy in that you are managing the natural world for the benefit of the people. Intrinsic benefits are great (pupfish, blind cavefish, etc) as long as the percived cost ($$ and resource access, personal property rights, etc) is low, but high cost policies and projects need to show a direct benefit to the general public (or at least a vocal or photogenic enough subset to garner larger support). As an example, that's why the Condor program has always struggled and the led bans are met with calls to "just finish off the stupid bird already", and programs that ignore this simple truth will always be on life support....

Good discussion, fish nerds.
And if you ever wanna meet a CA condor, let me know Jim. I know a guy...

Good info Rockfish, thanks. It certainly helps fill in the blanks for me, especially regarding the funding constraints.

It'll be interesting to see how long this run will require hatchery assistance before it's self-sustaining. If it goes on for too long, wouldn't these fish be no different from the traditional Feather River Hatchery strain? And if that's the case, how different would this operation be from a traditional hatchery operation?

realistically, I have a feeling that this will be a hatchery operation until the point that Mendota Pool and Folsom are no longer holding water back...  i.e. roughly the end of civilization if we are lucky it makes it that long.... but from a pragmatic point of view this is far superior to a dry river with nothing more than memories and laments running in its banks, a least in my opinion

My father was in resource management a the federal level for 35 years and the key thing I learned from him was that to have effective long term resource management you NEED public buy in that you are managing the natural world for the benefit of the people. Intrinsic benefits are great (pupfish, blind cavefish, etc) as long as the percived cost ($$ and resource access, personal property rights, etc) is low, but high cost policies and projects need to show a direct benefit to the general public (or at least a vocal or photogenic enough subset to garner larger support). As an example, that's why the Condor program has always struggled and the led bans are met with calls to "just finish off the stupid bird already", and programs that ignore this simple truth will always be on life support....

For sure, definitely better to have some fish than no fish.  Pre-Euro settlement, spring Chinook were the dominant salmon in CA, outnumbering the fall Chinook.  If I had to choose between more fall fish or more spring fish, I'd absolutely choose the latter.  Those springers are some of the best-eating fish anywhere and put those fall-run fish to shame.

Your father speaks wise words re: public buy-in. I feel I have it a lot easier being a fish bio compared to my wildlife bio colleagues. I can connect and build trust with stakeholders when they realize that I'm a fisherman who loves to eat fish, and that with our powers combined, we can get enough coho salmon returning to our rivers to eventually get them de-listed from ESA and provide more opportunities to harvest them. Meanwhile, the wildlife bios can't really make that ground-level connection with the general public when it comes to advocating for Northern spotted owls or marbled murellets. That is, until some popular chef comes out with a sweet recipe for spotted owl breasts  .

Good info Rockfish, thanks. It certainly helps fill in the blanks for me, especially regarding the funding constraints.

It'll be interesting to see how long this run will require hatchery assistance before it's self-sustaining. If it goes on for too long, wouldn't these fish be no different from the traditional Feather River Hatchery strain? And if that's the case, how different would this operation be from a traditional hatchery operation?

realistically, I have a feeling that this will be a hatchery operation until the point that Mendota Pool and Folsom are no longer holding water back...  i.e. roughly the end of civilization if we are lucky it makes it that long.... but from a pragmatic point of view this is far superior to a dry river with nothing more than memories and laments running in its banks, a least in my opinion

My father was in resource management a the federal level for 35 years and the key thing I learned from him was that to have effective long term resource management you NEED public buy in that you are managing the natural world for the benefit of the people. Intrinsic benefits are great (pupfish, blind cavefish, etc) as long as the percived cost ($$ and resource access, personal property rights, etc) is low, but high cost policies and projects need to show a direct benefit to the general public (or at least a vocal or photogenic enough subset to garner larger support). As an example, that's why the Condor program has always struggled and the led bans are met with calls to "just finish off the stupid bird already", and programs that ignore this simple truth will always be on life support....

For sure, definitely better to have some fish than no fish.  Pre-Euro settlement, spring Chinook were the dominant salmon in CA, outnumbering the fall Chinook.  If I had to choose between more fall fish or more spring fish, I'd absolutely choose the latter.  Those springers are some of the best-eating fish anywhere and put those fall-run fish to shame.

Your father speaks wise words re: public buy-in. I feel I have it a lot easier being a fish bio compared to my wildlife bio colleagues. I can connect and build trust with stakeholders when they realize that I'm a fisherman who loves to eat fish, and that with our powers combined, we can get enough coho salmon returning to our rivers to eventually get them de-listed from ESA and provide more opportunities to harvest them. Meanwhile, the wildlife bios can't really make that ground-level connection with the general public when it comes to advocating for Northern spotted owls or marbled murellets. That is, until some popular chef comes out with a sweet recipe for spotted owl breasts  .

yep, its not the easiest task for alot of fields, and it goes against the "pure preservation" ethos that rose out of the environmental movement on the west coast, got to look beyond the ideology....
I hear that Spotter Owl breast with pine nuts and chanterelle cream sauce is worth every minute in the hoosegow

Good discussion, fish nerds.
And if you ever wanna meet a CA condor, let me know Jim. I know a guy...

I'll be in pinnacles next weekend looking at rocks


I'll send a PM

Then we also have a political side to the river restoration ….
When I was in that area, there were a few politicians who were strongly opposed to this project.
The reason for the opposition was that they were informed that the Salmon were the poster child to get the river restored
Once the river was flowing well enough, there was (and may still be) a plan to divert more water south.
Basically,
Sell the public on the salmon in the river, Get the water flowing, Sell the water for large profits 
I sure hope this was just a conspiracy theory, but it was told to me more than once by some people that should be in the know.

Then we also have a political side to the river restoration ….
When I was in that area, there were a few politicians who were strongly opposed to this project.
The reason for the opposition was that they were informed that the Salmon were the poster child to get the river restored
Once the river was flowing well enough, there was (and may still be) a plan to divert more water south.
Basically,
Sell the public on the salmon in the river, Get the water flowing, Sell the water for large profits 
I sure hope this was just a conspiracy theory, but it was told to me more than once by some people that should be in the know.

Fortunately this is just fear-mongering.


The Friant Kern Canal has been loosing capacity for a few decades due to subsidence and the cost of restoring capacity is way more than anyone thus far has been willing to entertain. And since the valley as a whole rains to the north, increased water in the San Joaquin would not be able to flow south. One could argue that using San Joaquin water would make Delta Mendota Canal water available for southward wheeling (transport largely through contractual purposes without molecule for molecule transport) however that would be from one place of use to another place of use and would be very difficult on the contracting side.  Perhaps there cold be transfers attempting to use the federal portion of the California Aqueduct, but that too has been loosing capacity due to soil subsidence and there is not really anyone that I can think of that would be willing to give up their space for wheeling contracts to benefit Buttonwillow, Kern county and Semitropic water districts....

If you think scheduling NCKA events results in toes getting stepped on, water rights, place of use, contracts, transfers, adjudications, capacity issues and environmental account management is a nightmare.


again, just 2c

And what was it that Mark Twain said?? (or said at least as legend has it)